1. Canadian Safe Boating Council Personal Flotation Device (PFD) Study Highlights From SMARTRISK Background Research Paper Regarding Mandatory PFD Wear Legislation in Canada CSBC Action Plan

2. Background
In May 2001, CSBC struck a Lifejacket/PFD Taskforce to examine advisability of advocating for legislation concerning mandatory PFD use for recreational boaters in small craft
In October 2002, the taskforce contracted with SMARTRISK, a national injury prevention organization, to develop a background research paper summarizing best available evidence pertaining to mandatory lifejacket/PFD use
This background paper would then be used to inform a position paper on the topic of mandatory PFD wear by the taskforce
SMARTRISK is a national non-profit organization dedicated to preventing injuries and saving lives. Founded in 1992, SMARTRISK has become one of the leading injury prevention groups in Canada and enjoys international recognition and support.
Project Team:
Dr. Philip Groff Ms. Jennifer Ghadiali
Dr. Chris Brooks Ms. Na-Koshie Lamptey
Dr. Eden Cloutier Mr. Victor Opara

3. Objectives To determine whether or not:
there is a problem that needs to be addressed
mandatory PFD use is likely to address the problem
it is possible to successfully work toward such a regulatory solution
there is evidence that such legislation could be successfully implemented

4. Methodology Is there a problem?
general data relating to boating-related drowning deaths in Canada collected and analyzed
incidence rates of drowning related to boating and PFD use collected and compiled from a number of sources
economic burden associated with boating-related drowning deaths modeled

5. Methodology (cont’d) Would mandatory PFD wear address the problem?
research relating to PFD use and efficacy examined
literature re efficacy of other non-legislative efforts summarized
efficacy of mandatory PFD legislation in other jurisdictions reviewed
survey of international experts conducted
efficacy of seatbelt and bicycle helmet legislation examined

6. Methodology (cont’d) Is future legislation mandating PFD use feasible?
current statutes and case law summarized
interviews conducted with policy makers, researchers, drowning prevention advocates, international experts and other stakeholders re opportunities and barriers
Could it be implemented?
literature re public attitudes conducted
public opinion poll conducted

7. Key Research Findings

8. Magnitude of the Problem
Average of 140 recreational boaters drown every year (may underestimate by 43% due to misclassification)
64% of drowning victims were fishing or power-boating
60% drownings associated with small open powerboats or canoes

9. Magnitude of the Problem (cont’d)
61% recreational boating drownings occurred on a lake, 25% in a river and 15% in the ocean
17% involve multiple drowning victims, with an average of 2.9 deaths per incident
34% of drownings occurred after the boat capsized
20% after the victim fell overboard
13% after the boat became swamped
Near-drownings:
little data available currently
in , 63 hospitalized, another 45 died in hospital

10. Magnitude of the Problem (cont’d)
Canada has a higher drowning rate and boat ownership than the U.S., Scotland, France, and U.K.
Canada has a lower drowning rate and boat ownership than Norway and Finland
International comparisons of drowning rates are difficult as we do not have good information on boat ownership, frequency of boating participation, and water temperature is likely to be a factor

11. Magnitude of the Problem (cont’d)
SMARTRISK model of economic burden of recreational boating drowning, based upon forgone market wages of drowning victims, calculates economic burden of drowning deaths in Canada in 1999 as over $30 million
Other estimates that include search and rescue place the annual figure at about $80 million

12. Key Risk Factors Males (90% recreational boating drownings)
Aboriginals (3% population, 11% boating deaths)
Swimming ability not strong predictor (14% who drowned in 1999 weak/non-swimmers)
Water temperature
1% drownings in Canada in 1999 in water above 20 ˚C
water colder than 20 ˚C in boating season

13. Key Risk Factors (cont’d)
Wind, waves, lighting
Alcohol
detected in 31% of all victims
suspected in 7% victims
Operator competency
84% US fatalities in 2000 had no training
Recklessness and poor judgment
Not wearing PFD
89% drowning victims
1 in 4 cases, PFD onboard but not worn
Alcohol – BAC is unknown for a significant portion, so likely to be underestimated

14. Efficacy of PFDs for Preventing Drownings
PFDs and lifejackets have enough buoyancy, and some capability to turn wearer onto his/her back
2 in 3 boaters feel safe if PFD within reach, and think it can be put on in an emergency
Unrealistic: like trying to buckle car seat belt before a crash

15. Efficacy of PFDs for Preventing Drownings (cont’d)
Why is it unrealistic?
immersions are sudden
winds and waves
boats without engine kill mechanism may continue on, with PFD aboard
most importantly cold water shock
Conclusion: PFDs are only effective if worn

16. Drowning Close to Shore
Based on data collected between 1991 and 2000, 41% of those who were boating and drowned were within 10 meters of shore. An additional 22% were within 10 – 15 meters of shore

17. Incidence of PFD Usage Estimates range from:
21% (observational) to 47% (self-reports) for adults
85% children aged 5 or less
70% children 6-9
37% teens
kayaks 95%
personal watercraft (PWCs) 92%
canoes 63%
non-motorized fishing boats 58%
utility / skiffs 42%

18. Incidence of PFD Usage (cont’d)
If one person on-board wears a PFD, others more likely to do so. 20% of boaters would not wear PFD if no one else on-board wearing one
Children more likely to wear a PFD if an adult on-board is wearing one (95% vs. 65%)
58% boaters would wear a PFD if operator did
89% would wear a PFD if asked by operator
88% always carry a PFD for each passenger on board but only 52% insist that they are worn

19. Barriers to Wearing a PFD 5 common perceptions:
Low risk of drowning
PFDs restrict movement / interfere with activities
PFDs are uncomfortable
PFDS are unattractive
PFDS are a sign of fear
Low risk of drowning
e.g. PFDs unnecessary for swimmers, experienced boaters, in shallow water, near shore, in calm weather
PFDs restrict movement/ interfere with activities
e.g. when fishing, paddling, swimming, suntanning
PFDs are uncomfortable
e.g. too hot/too cold, too bulky, cannot wear with jacket
PFDS are unattractive
e.g. unfashionable, unflattering
PFDS are a sign of fear
e.g. for those who are not confident, “wimps”

20. Efficacy of Methods to Increase PFD Wear
Small Vessel Regulations require carriage of PFDs but only 1 in 5 adults wear them
Operator competency requirements based on CCG – accredited test, but may not influence PFD wear rates
Numerous social marketing / educational campaigns conducted to increase PFD wear rates, but no significant behavioural changes
Small Vessel Regulations require that there are a sufficient number of Canadian approved flotation devices of the appropriate size for each person on-board a pleasure craft
Operator competency: one survey of recreational boaters found little difference in self-reported PFD wear rates amongst those who have taken a boating safety course vs. those that did not
Social Marketing
many campaigns do not reach the target audience (often PSAs vs. higher impact advertising)
Three evaluations of Washington-area educational campaigns found:
PFD usage: Pre 20%/ Post 29%
PFD usage: Pre 20%/ Post 31%
PFD usage: Pre 14%/ Post 25%

21. Efficacy of Methods to Increase PFD Wear (cont’d)
Many programs and incentives to stimulate PFD usage. Some anecdotal evidence re: positive impact, but no evaluation
Making insurance dependent upon wearing a PFD could have positive effect, but uncertain
Programs and Incentives
PFD loaner programs
discount coupons for PFDs and trade-in programs
prizes / coupons for those observed wearing a PFD
candy / give-aways with PFD slogans
posters at launch ramps, docks
PFD fashion shows
floats in parades
school curriculum, at boat shows
Insurance
One survey found that if it was required for insurance:
64% would always wear a PFD
31% say they would sometimes wear a PFD

22. Efficacy of Methods to Increase PFD Wear (cont’d)
To encourage PFD wear:
number of approved colours expanded
light-weight, less bulky designs available
inflatables can be used for rowing and paddling
But low awareness of these changes and unknown effect on wear rates
Conclusion: current methods are not enough to increase PFD wear significantly
Low Awareness
Only 50% recreational boaters surveyed by SMARTRISK were aware of these changes

23. The Case for PFD Legislation
Seat belt usage has increased dramatically following introduction of legislation
Bicycle helmet wear rates have increased dramatically in B.C and Halifax
Legislation would assist courts in identifying passengers’ versus owners’ negligence in incidents

24. The Case for PFD Legislation (cont’d)
Only U.S. and Australia have mandatory PFD wear legislation
U.S., 40 states have some type of PFD wear legislation
Australia, 2 states have some type of PFD wear legislation
No formal evaluation of efficacy, but preventive indicators

25. Barriers and Opportunities for PFD Legislation in Canada
International boating / drowning experts provided input re. barriers and methods of facilitating PFD legislation:
Key Barriers:
Government resistance
Lack of public support or pressure (personal freedoms)
Absence of champions bringing attention to issue
Key Facilitators:
Champions
High profile drowning incidents
Developing support amongst:
policy makers (presentations highlighting drowning stats & personal stories)
boaters (consultation sessions)

26. Barriers and Opportunities for PFD Legislation in Canada (cont’d)
Canadian policy makers, advocates, researchers, law enforcement, boating organization representatives provided input re. support for PFD legislation in Canada, barriers and methods of facilitating legislation
Conflicting viewpoints re:
public resistance
statistical evidence
feasibility of enforcement
current political context favourable?

27. Barriers and Opportunities for PFD Legislation in Canada (cont’d)
Agree re need for:
support
communications and targeted public education campaigns
champion
Mixed support for legislation
Support needed from:
CSBC membership
Anglers & hunters
Cottagers’ Association
Northern Canadians
Small vessel owners

28. Likely Public Response to PFD Legislation in Canada
Public Response to PFD Legislation in Other Jurisdictions
All NASBLA reps from U.S. states with PFD legislation surveyed claimed that the general public has been either very supportive (57%) or somewhat supportive (43%)
Tasmanian respondent indicated that general public has been very supportive of PFD legislation in spite of fact that only 39% supported legislation for adults before law enacted
Past Canadian Research
Various Canadian surveys found support for PFD legislation ranged from 23% to 62%. Opposition to legislation ranged from 11% to 38%

29. Likely Public Response to PFD Legislation in Canada (cont’d)
Public Opinion Poll
Support for PFD legislation for all occupants on-board was very strong:
varied from 70% for pontoon boats to 87% for PWCs
Few supported PFD legislation for children only:
ranged from 2% for PWCs to 9% for powered runabouts/ cruisers
Opposition to PFD legislation was minimal:
ranged from 5% for PWCs and sailboats to 7% for pontoon boats, rowboats / dinghies, fishing boats / utility boats / skiffs

30. Likely Public Response to PFD Legislation in Canada (cont’d)
Public Opinion Poll
The vast majority claim they would comply with legislation if it were enacted:
varied from 84% for pontoon boats to 93% for PWCs
A small segment would wear a PFD under certain circumstances (e.g. poor weather)
ranged from 5% for PWCs to 10% for pontoon boats
Very few claimed they would defy PFD legislation:
ranged from 2% for PWCs to 5% for fishing boats / utility boats / skiffs

31. General Conclusions Boating related drownings warrant action
PFD wear is the risk factor to address to prevent these drownings
Mandatory wear legislation is the intervention to employ to increase PFD wear
Such legislation should be feasible in Canada

32. Recommendations
The PFD Task Force, and the Canadian Safe Boating Council as a whole, work toward mandatory PFD wear legislation
develop action plan, identify champion
consult stakeholders
develop communications strategy
conduct research

33. CSBC Conclusions
PFD Task Force recommended
“That CSBC membership accept the Background Research paper Regarding Mandatory PFD Wear Legislation in Canada that was written and presented by SMARTRISK and develop and implement an action plan based on the building of stakeholder consensus to advocate for the required wearing of PFDs/lifejackets by boaters while on the water.”
Approved unanimously CSBC AGM, September 27, 2003

34. CSBC Action Plan
Communicate report findings to stakeholders from boating organizations, manufacturers, government agencies and public to:
raise awareness of drowning and boating related fatalities
communicate link between cold water shock and need for flotation devices

35. CSBC Action Plan (cont’d)
Build consensus to advocate for compulsory wearing in all open recreational vessels less than 6m in length, while under way
Ensure government policy-makers are informed of need to address problem, opportunity to reduce fatalities and ongoing activities of CSBC
Obtain voluntary commitment from organizations and individuals to wearing of PFDs on their boats

36. Organizational Commitment regarding the wear of personal flotation devices (PFDs)
(Name of Organization) recognizes that wearing a PFD when recreational boating plays a valuable role in preventing drowning.
(Name of Organization) commits to promoting the policy that all occupants of any open recreational vessel that is under the control of one of our members, wear an appropriate PFD at all times when the vessel is underway. Please find attached a copy of our policy.
(Name of Organization) represents (number and type of boaters and location – local, regional, national)
(Name of Organization) supports the introduction of a regulation making compulsory wear of PFDs in open recreational vessels while underway mandatory in Canada. (identify any limitations on this support, e.g. only for non-power-driven vessels, children under 12 etc.)

37. Individual Commitment regarding the wear of personal flotation devices (PFDs)
I recognize that wearing a PFD when recreational boating plays a valuable role in preventing drowning.
I commit to ensuring that all occupants of any recreational vessel that is under my control, wear an appropriate PFD at all times when the vessel is underway.
I would support the introduction of a regulation making compulsory wear of PFDs in open recreational vessels while underway mandatory in Canada. (identify any limitations on this support, e.g. only for non-power-driven vessels, children under 12 etc.)